NEW HORSEPOWER / TORQUE SPECS for 2021 Bronco 2.3L and 2.7L

[Beachin 74]

I figure the 2.3L makes about the same HP/TQ as my 351W in my 74'.

Sponsored

 

[nminus1]

Are the higher numbers with 91? 93?

Even the regular fuel numbers are up over the initial ones. I don't think either engine, no matter how you fuel it, is going to have any issues moving along.

The SAE standard uses 93. Here in Kalifornia all we have normally is 91. I'll def put 91 in it and higher when found I never understand people who try to save $2-3 a tank by using crappy gas if they just spent 50k on a new car......

 

[vrtical]

I ran 92/93 in my f150 so works for me

 

[ohvrider]

I'd like to same the MPG figures with regular and premium fuel with sasquatch and automatic.

 

[got_G.O.A.T.?]

The SAE standard uses 93. Here in Kalifornia all we have normally is 91. I'll def put 91 in it and higher when found I never understand people who try to save $2-3 a tank by using crappy gas if they just spent 50k on a new car......

I don't get it either. Some of my friends and family will drive miles out of the way to save 3-5 cents per gallon. Most of them aren't even saving a dollar per tank. When I tell them they burn most of that savings driving to a further station, they just look at me like I'm crazy. Whatever makes them happy, I guess.

 

[Lowcountry Bronco]

The SAE standard uses 93. Here in Kalifornia all we have normally is 91. I'll def put 91 in it and higher when found I never understand people who try to save $2-3 a tank by using crappy gas if they just spent 50k on a new car......

Difference here is around 50 cents between regular and premium, so a 2 door has a 16.9 tank would put it close to $8.50 every fill up. A 2 door squatch is going to be lucky to break 20 mpg so maybe 300 miles a tank and I'm lucky my commute isn't long and isn't allot of stop and go. The extra money isn't going to hurt me but I'll probably still test it out to see if it's worth the extra cost or even discernable.

 

[Bdisco]

It amazes me that you can gain that much HP just by using premium fuel.

Some decal stickers can add as much as 5hp each...

 

[TXRancher]

Are the higher numbers with 91? 93?

Even the regular fuel numbers are up over the initial ones. I don't think either engine, no matter how you fuel it, is going to have any issues moving along.

Had to do some sluthing but...

From https://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/data/

J1349

Ford

2.3L GTDI

2015 Mustang (w/Manual Transmission) – 98 RON Fuel

and
Octane rating conversions

EURO RON	US (R+M)/2
95	90.7
96	91.6
98	93.5

From https://www.google.com/search?q=98+...1.69i57j0l9.5010j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
*Forgot one

 

[BFizzy]

China’s greenhouse emissions exceed every developed nation combined. COMBINED.

Also, pet dander and mowing your lawn are a lot more likely to cause an asthma attack. Reducing emissions is great, but it’s not going to eradicate global warming or allergies.

 

[5280Bronco]

Wow. Pretty close in numbers vs the previous gen Explorer ST which was a 6.0 second 0-60. If Bronco is close to that... yeah that’s pretty damn quick for an SUV

The 2.7 base non squatch 2 door with some decent tires might be one of the best sleepers of all time.

No doubt. Everyone on here hates the street truck thing, but i would love to see what could be done with that setup. Bronco lightning would be kinda fun. I would love to have both the BD i ordered and a base 2 door that was setup for the street. No 20s or lowering, just a 18 inch wheel/tire setup for the street that would stick.

 

[Ryuk]

Modern vehicles use a sensor to detect the RON of fuel in the tank (or blend), and re-map the ECU to run safely.

It doesn't re-map. That would be replacing the existing tune with a second tune that is stored on another part of the ECU.
The existing tune combined with the sensors has programing that pulls timing and boost to put the engine in a state that keeps the knock below a pre-programmed safe level.

 

[Rick Astley]

It doesn't re-map. That would be replacing the existing tune with a second tune that is stored on another part of the ECU.
The existing tune combined with the sensors has programing that pulls timing and boost to put the engine in a state that keeps the knock below a pre-programmed safe level.


Absolutely zero, unless the bronco is re-tuned.

For all intents and purposes for a thread this basic, the concept of variables and specifics is overkill.

FWIW: I used to tune my evo using a 4-bar MAP sensor which is fairly close to standard (and drastically expanded) for static tuning, which is now how modern ECU tuning and variables work, but there were multiple sub-maps which could fail-safe to in given situations. Pretty sure OEM's are beyond that now....

It was fun to tune for each fuel though, especially once the MAP sensors allowed for real-time elevation adjustment.

 

[JoeSpeed]

According to this, 2.3t on Reg is 216whp auto/221 manual, and 236a/242m, while for the 2.7t, 248 reg/261 prem (4WD #'s)

Of course, take that with a bit of a grain of salt, it's a guestimator, but in general, if you get the crank hp #'s out of whp from dynoing, you're set.

Same #'s plugged in with rwd, be 227a/232m reg, 248a/254m super (2.3), and 261r/274s for the 2.7

 

[Montana Bronco]

Don't think you understand what 90% of the tunes and mods are. But you do you...

Hey, I said I had no problem whatsoever with tuning to increase power. But I draw a hard line when your tune increases emissions. America is a free country, but you have absolutely no right to harm the health of your fellow citizens.

Sponsored